The M43 problem - It too good to abandon

jeffharris · Oct 18, 2025

mmartel said:
jeffharris said:

Bobapingu said:

Thomas Kachadurian said:

I toyed with getting a Nikon z5II, but then I look at the lenses and they are both expensive for the quality level I want, and heavy.

Click to expand...

Now here is this never ending debate again. M4/3 shooters, including myself, have not the slightest doubt that Thomas's observations are correct. Yet FF shooters are adamant the gap no longer exist. There are so many ifs and buts, but this myth needs to be irrefutably debunked by some respected reviewer. The IQ advantage of FF is not in question but the size, weight and cost certainly is.

Click to expand...

The FF trolls seem to think the lecturing us poor ignorant M4/3 using slobs about the ultimate superiority of FF kit is crucial. To them apparently.

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

Yeah, FF is able to produce better results, but I'm not hauling 3 times the bulk and weight around.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

It's a nice light kit, although I'm totally mystified by the choice of an unstabilized and heavier Oly 12-40mm f2.8 rather than a lighter stabilized 12-35mm f2.8.

Closer focus distance. Although I see the newer PL 12-35mm f2.8 has a similar focus distance. I like shooting small artifacts in museums, but even 40mm isn't long enough at times and the 35-100mm has a rotten minimum focus distance, 30".

So, I've been thinking about the 12-60mm f2.8-4 as an alternative.

mmartel said:
Also, I know it sucks to keep hearing stuff like this but an A7c line body with Tamron's 25-200 f2.8-5.6 could cover the same focal range and equivalent aperture without a need to change lenses and weigh the same or less. Relatively heavy glass on a relatively small body isn't a combo I personally like, and I just don't like carrying kits costing close to three thousand bucks around, but It is what it is from an equivalence perspective.

I don't really want to change systems and I'm not a Sony fan. I'd most likely go with Fuji if i were to change.

jeffharris · Oct 18, 2025

ahaslett said:
SonyX said:

jeffharris said:

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

if it would be a "HUGE importance" - lenses would be 12-32/3.5-5.6, 35-100/4-5.6

ahaslett said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I wish my copy was better

Plus 20/1.7 and SY 7.5 fe, or 40-150 R.

I think what Jeff meant was that we all pack up to our limit on size and budget vs shooting envelope. Not to mention his entirely understandable love affair with Voigts.

Exactly. No system is prefect an like EVERYTHING it boils down to what you're willing to compromise in order to do what you want to do.

I only want a camera with an EVF. That non-negotiable.

And YES, the Voigtländers!

Native

Adapted

ChristopherIQ · Oct 18, 2025

jeffharris said:
Bobapingu said:

Thomas Kachadurian said:

I toyed with getting a Nikon z5II, but then I look at the lenses and they are both expensive for the quality level I want, and heavy.

Click to expand...

Now here is this never ending debate again. M4/3 shooters, including myself, have not the slightest doubt that Thomas's observations are correct. Yet FF shooters are adamant the gap no longer exist. There are so many ifs and buts, but this myth needs to be irrefutably debunked by some respected reviewer. The IQ advantage of FF is not in question but the size, weight and cost certainly is.

Click to expand...

The FF trolls seem to think the lecturing us poor ignorant M4/3 using slobs about the ultimate superiority of FF kit is crucial. To them apparently.

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

Yeah, FF is able to produce better results, but I'm not hauling 3 times the bulk and weight around.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Funny thing. I have some wonderful high resolution medium format and full frame gear.

I've used them side by side with my smaller sensor cameras, and even on those occasions, my favorite pictures are mostly taken with the smaller sensor cameras.

Another consideration with the M43 system is that there are cameras like the OM-1 Mk. II with 120fps and zero blackout that are fantastic for specific types of photography for a fraction of the price that you'd pay for a flagship Sony or Nikon. Probably easier to work with all day given size and weight, too.

I also think M43 systems are getting more recognition these days - I may be wrong, but, it seems that advertising and marketing is a bit behind the mark.

--
---- Chris

mmartel · Oct 18, 2025

jeffharris said:
mmartel said:

jeffharris said:

Bobapingu said:

Thomas Kachadurian said:

I toyed with getting a Nikon z5II, but then I look at the lenses and they are both expensive for the quality level I want, and heavy.

Click to expand...

Now here is this never ending debate again. M4/3 shooters, including myself, have not the slightest doubt that Thomas's observations are correct. Yet FF shooters are adamant the gap no longer exist. There are so many ifs and buts, but this myth needs to be irrefutably debunked by some respected reviewer. The IQ advantage of FF is not in question but the size, weight and cost certainly is.

Click to expand...

The FF trolls seem to think the lecturing us poor ignorant M4/3 using slobs about the ultimate superiority of FF kit is crucial. To them apparently.

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

Yeah, FF is able to produce better results, but I'm not hauling 3 times the bulk and weight around.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

It's a nice light kit, although I'm totally mystified by the choice of an unstabilized and heavier Oly 12-40mm f2.8 rather than a lighter stabilized 12-35mm f2.8.

Click to expand...

Closer focus distance. Although I see the newer PL 12-35mm f2.8 has a similar focus distance. I like shooting small artifacts in museums, but even 40mm isn't long enough at times and the 35-100mm has a rotten minimum focus distance, 30".

So, I've been thinking about the 12-60mm f2.8-4 as an alternative.

The PL12-60mm (if you get a good copy) is a gem.

If it were an Oly lens, it would have far more fans.

jeffharris said:
jeffharris said:

Also, I know it sucks to keep hearing stuff like this but an A7c line body with Tamron's 25-200 f2.8-5.6 could cover the same focal range and equivalent aperture without a need to change lenses and weigh the same or less. Relatively heavy glass on a relatively small body isn't a combo I personally like, and I just don't like carrying kits costing close to three thousand bucks around, but It is what it is from an equivalence perspective.

Click to expand...

I don't really want to change systems and I'm not a Sony fan. I'd most likely go with Fuji if i were to change.

I don't really want to change systems either. And most likely won't for a long while. I have all the glass I want and my bodies do what I need them to do and I enjoy using them so much.

That said, there's a lot of awfully green grass out there...

--
"Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight." - Titanic musician before their final song

ahaslett · Oct 18, 2025

jeffharris said:
ahaslett said:

SonyX said:

jeffharris said:

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

if it would be a "HUGE importance" - lenses would be 12-32/3.5-5.6, 35-100/4-5.6

jeffharris said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I wish my copy was better

Plus 20/1.7 and SY 7.5 fe, or 40-150 R.

I think what Jeff meant was that we all pack up to our limit on size and budget vs shooting envelope. Not to mention his entirely understandable love affair with Voigts.

Click to expand...

Exactly. No system is prefect an like EVERYTHING it boils down to what you're willing to compromise in order to do what you want to do.

I only want a camera with an EVF. That non-negotiable.

And YES, the Voigtländers!

Native

Adapted

I have no more problems with Sony than any other maker.

All lenses with a certain character. The APO Lanthar is amazing.

A

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

ahaslett · Oct 18, 2025

You must have noticed that the grass is always greener SooC with Olympus!

A

jeffharris · Oct 18, 2025

SonyX said:
jeffharris said:

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

if it would be a "HUGE importance" - lenses would be 12-32/3.5-5.6, 35-100/4-5.6

Definitely NOT kit lenses. Bought several. Sold them all.

For me, they're definitely NOT worth it.

mmartel · Oct 18, 2025

ahaslett said:
You must have noticed that the grass is always greener SooC with Olympus!

Ever since I added an EM1X to my all-Lumix camera shelf, I can 100% confirm this is true.

ikolbyi · Oct 18, 2025

jeffharris said:
Bobapingu said:

Thomas Kachadurian said:

I toyed with getting a Nikon z5II, but then I look at the lenses and they are both expensive for the quality level I want, and heavy.

Click to expand...

Now here is this never ending debate again. M4/3 shooters, including myself, have not the slightest doubt that Thomas's observations are correct. Yet FF shooters are adamant the gap no longer exist. There are so many ifs and buts, but this myth needs to be irrefutably debunked by some respected reviewer. The IQ advantage of FF is not in question but the size, weight and cost certainly is.

Click to expand...

The FF trolls seem to think the lecturing us poor ignorant M4/3 using slobs about the ultimate superiority of FF kit is crucial. To them apparently.

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

Yeah, FF is able to produce better results, but I'm not hauling 3 times the bulk and weight around.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

It comes down to use case. If we are not photographing the same subject, then your kit would not work for someone else.

Based on what you have (and I do like your choices BTW), I could not use it for certain sports, most wildlife, and macro could be a challenge for certain 'looks'.

Outside of that, everyone could easily use your kit to get 'the shot' for all other types of subjects.

ikolbyi · Oct 18, 2025

jeffharris said:
SonyX said:

jeffharris said:

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

if it would be a "HUGE importance" - lenses would be 12-32/3.5-5.6, 35-100/4-5.6

jeffharris said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Compare FF 70-200 f2.8 to M4/3 35-100 f2.8 lenses to get the point.

HUGE difference.

In fairness, need to compare his kit to LUMIX S1.2E w/28-200mm lens.

SonyX · Oct 18, 2025

jeffharris said:
SonyX said:

jeffharris said:

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

if it would be a "HUGE importance" - lenses would be 12-32/3.5-5.6, 35-100/4-5.6

Click to expand...

Definitely NOT kit lenses. Bought several. Sold them all.

For me, they're definitely NOT worth it.

so, size and less weight are not of HUGE importance, still there are criteria that prevent the maximum reduction.
Nikon Z7II+24-120/4 & Viltrox 14/4, probably, will fit in your bag too

jeffharris · Oct 18, 2025

ikolbyi said:
jeffharris said:

Bobapingu said:

Thomas Kachadurian said:

I toyed with getting a Nikon z5II, but then I look at the lenses and they are both expensive for the quality level I want, and heavy.

Click to expand...

Now here is this never ending debate again. M4/3 shooters, including myself, have not the slightest doubt that Thomas's observations are correct. Yet FF shooters are adamant the gap no longer exist. There are so many ifs and buts, but this myth needs to be irrefutably debunked by some respected reviewer. The IQ advantage of FF is not in question but the size, weight and cost certainly is.

Click to expand...

The FF trolls seem to think the lecturing us poor ignorant M4/3 using slobs about the ultimate superiority of FF kit is crucial. To them apparently.

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

Yeah, FF is able to produce better results, but I'm not hauling 3 times the bulk and weight around.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

It comes down to use case. If we are not photographing the same subject, then your kit would not work for someone else.

Of course.

ikolbyi said:
Based on what you have (and I do like your choices BTW), I could not use it for certain sports, most wildlife, and macro could be a challenge for certain 'looks'.

Outside of that, everyone could easily use your kit to get 'the shot' for all other types of subjects.

This is my kit for urban travel. Museums, cathedrals and wandering around cities and villages. I spent a lot of travel time hauling all sorts of lens combinations and kind of settled on these three. Lots of range. Fast enough for interiors and night. Excellent image quality.

For urban shooting at home, I have a kit of Voigtländer primes.

For hiking and critter photos (bugs, frogs, snakes, etc.) I use the 12-40mm and PL 50-200mm + 1.4x TC.

Tom Caldwell · Oct 18, 2025

The Panasonic FZ1 9 October 2002

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0725932074/panasonicfz1

For those with very long memories and who have relished in the journey since.

This was a cracking good camera in its day and set the brand Panasonic (shakily) on its journey as a serious digital camera maker. Before that it was just a few pretty average efforts.

--
Tom Caldwell

jeffharris · Oct 18, 2025

ikolbyi said:
jeffharris said:

SonyX said:

jeffharris said:

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

if it would be a "HUGE importance" - lenses would be 12-32/3.5-5.6, 35-100/4-5.6

ikolbyi said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Compare FF 70-200 f2.8 to M4/3 35-100 f2.8 lenses to get the point.

HUGE difference.

Click to expand...

In fairness, need to compare his kit to LUMIX S1.2E w/28-200mm lens.

Fairness? That lens is a super zoom kit lens with a variable aperture.
The last time I checked, f4-7.1 isn’t anywhere near constant f2.8.

ikolbyi · Oct 18, 2025

jeffharris said:
ikolbyi said:

jeffharris said:

SonyX said:

jeffharris said:

Smaller size and less weight are of HUGE importance.

GX8, 12-40mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8, 7-14mm f4. 2 lenses in the Patagonia Atom 8L sling pack.

Click to expand...

if it would be a "HUGE importance" - lenses would be 12-32/3.5-5.6, 35-100/4-5.6

jeffharris said:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Compare FF 70-200 f2.8 to M4/3 35-100 f2.8 lenses to get the point.

HUGE difference.

Click to expand...

In fairness, need to compare his kit to LUMIX S1.2E w/28-200mm lens.

Click to expand...

Fairness? That lens is a super zoom kit lens with a variable aperture.
The last time I checked, f4-7.1 isn’t anywhere near constant f2.8.

It may not have a constant aperture, but the FF sensor will compensate for the higher ISO compared to the MFT sensor ISO and the DOF will be more comparable as well.

ikolbyi · Oct 18, 2025

Tom Caldwell said:
The Panasonic FZ1 9 October 2002

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0725932074/panasonicfz1

For those with very long memories and who have relished in the journey since.

This was a cracking good camera in its day and set the brand Panasonic (shakily) on its journey as a serious digital camera maker. Before that it was just a few pretty average efforts.

That's exactly how I felt from my former Sony V3, had that camera for about 10 years before I sold it.

https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscv3

cba_melbourne · Oct 18, 2025

Trevor Carpenter said:
just playing devils advocate; it could be another reason why Sigma and Tamron don't do m4/3s is because they have never been able to compete with Olympus and Panasonic lenses

You really think so?

There are people who think the 75 (and maybe a couple other early m43 lenses) were made by Sigma for Olympus. Or at least designed by Sigma for Olympus. We have no proof, but there is a Sigma patent for the 75 that predates it's release. https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6389121961/did-sigma-design-the-olympus-m-zuiko-75mm-f1-8.

And that 75 is actually one of the sharpest lenses in m43.

Similarly there are people who suspect some newer OM lenses could actually be designed by Sigma, or even made by Sigma for OM. Think both 100-400, or the 150-600 which look suspiciously like older Sigma lenses adapted to m43.

When it comes to lenses, outsourcing is not that uncommon in the camera industry. But rarely gets talked about, because the public wants to buy "their" brand name. And any other brand name is seen as inferior and expected to sell for much less.

It is very well possible, that Sigma has an agreement with OM not to compete with it anymore, in return for some manufacturing orders. Just as well, it could be m43 as a lens market has simply become too small to be worthwhile.

It is similar with Panasonic. Half of their Yamagata factory produces lenses for an undisclosed customer, your guess who this might likely be. Hint: Panasonic has a cooperation agreement with a non-Japanese camera maker.

Messier Object · Oct 18, 2025

Trevor Carpenter said:
just playing devils advocate; it could be another reason why Sigma and Tamron don't do m4/3s is because they have never been able to compete with Olympus and Panasonic lenses

I don’t t think so Trevor

Just look at how Sigma contributes the the L-mount and what they quickly rolled out when Canon opened the (crop) RFs mount to them and I’m sure, given the opportunity, they would go hard and deep into the FF RF mount and would take a big sales % off Canon.

Peter

High ISO Fail · Oct 18, 2025

Trevor Carpenter said:
just playing devils advocate; it could be another reason why Sigma and Tamron don't do m4/3s is because they have never been able to compete with Olympus and Panasonic lenses

[ " Sigma and Tamron didn’t make M43 lenses because they couldn’t compete " ]

If pure competition with superior native glass were the primary reason for pulling out, Sigma and Tamron would have already withdrawn from every major mount, including Sony FE-Mount and E-Mount, Canon RF(APS-C) Mount, and Nikon Z Mount.

Those systems with far superior native glass and much tougher markets. Yet somehow, we’re supposed to believe they were “too scared” of OM SYSTEM and Panasonic?

They didn’t quit because they couldn’t compete, they quit because the system isn’t worth competing in. No demand, no profit, no future. It’s that simple.

If pure competition with superior native glass were the primary reason for pulling out, Sigma and Tamron would have already withdrawn from every major mount.

They Thrive on Competition: Sigma and Tamron are multi-mount behemoths. They constantly compete against the excellent, often superior, first-party lenses (like Sony's G Master or Canon's EF L glass). Despite this superior competition, they continue to release dozens of new, innovative lenses for those mounts because the market volume is massive and profitable.

The Real Metric is Volume: Third-party lens development is driven by the potential return on investment (ROI). Developing a new, specialized lens for a system requires significant R&D and manufacturing investment. If the M4/3 user base was large enough and growing, they would certainly stay, even if they had to price their lenses aggressively to compete with Olympus/Panasonic.

Low Barrier to Entry: Remember that Sigma's M4/3 entries were mostly mount-swapped versions of their existing APS-C lenses (e.g., the Art series primes). These products had an extremely low development cost. If the M4/3 market couldn't even justify continuing these low-investment products, the problem is not that the competition is too good, but that the overall demand is too small to justify any ongoing effort.

The choice to cease development signals a lack of perceived long-term growth and profitability in the M4/3 segment, regardless of the quality of the existing native lenses. If the system was truly thriving, third parties would fight for a piece of the pie. They aren't fighting; they left.

mmartel · Oct 18, 2025

High ISO Fail said:
Trevor Carpenter said:

just playing devils advocate; it could be another reason why Sigma and Tamron don't do m4/3s is because they have never been able to compete with Olympus and Panasonic lenses

Click to expand...

[ " Sigma and Tamron didn’t make M43 lenses because they couldn’t compete " ]

If pure competition with superior native glass were the primary reason for pulling out, Sigma and Tamron would have already withdrawn from every major mount, including Sony FE-Mount and E-Mount, Canon RF(APS-C) Mount, and Nikon Z Mount.

Those systems with far superior native glass and much tougher markets. Yet somehow, we’re supposed to believe they were “too scared” of OM SYSTEM and Panasonic?

They didn’t quit because they couldn’t compete, they quit because the system isn’t worth competing in. No demand, no profit, no future. It’s that simple.

If pure competition with superior native glass were the primary reason for pulling out, Sigma and Tamron would have already withdrawn from every major mount.

They Thrive on Competition: Sigma and Tamron are multi-mount behemoths. They constantly compete against the excellent, often superior, first-party lenses (like Sony's G Master or Canon's EF L glass). Despite this superior competition, they continue to release dozens of new, innovative lenses for those mounts because the market volume is massive and profitable.

The Real Metric is Volume: Third-party lens development is driven by the potential return on investment (ROI). Developing a new, specialized lens for a system requires significant R&D and manufacturing investment. If the M4/3 user base was large enough and growing, they would certainly stay, even if they had to price their lenses aggressively to compete with Olympus/Panasonic.

Low Barrier to Entry: Remember that Sigma's M4/3 entries were mostly mount-swapped versions of their existing APS-C lenses (e.g., the Art series primes). These products had an extremely low development cost. If the M4/3 market couldn't even justify continuing these low-investment products, the problem is not that the competition is too good, but that the overall demand is too small to justify any ongoing effort.

The choice to cease development signals a lack of perceived long-term growth and profitability in the M4/3 segment, regardless of the quality of the existing native lenses. If the system was truly thriving, third parties would fight for a piece of the pie. They aren't fighting; they left.

@High ISO Fail: If you would be so kind as to entertain me for a moment... I cannot disagree with your assessment that Sigma decided there was little money for them to make in m43. However, I notice that despite your remarkably detailed takedown of Mr. Carpenter's "Sigma couldn't compete" theory, you've neglected to engage in my key observations about Sigma's exit from the m43 market.

Allow me to recap a couple of my points and invite you to respond:

1. Sigma offered us m43 basement-dwelling losers VIRTUALLY NOTHING compelling under their own brand name. The 56mm f1.4 is the only truly appealing lens I can think of. The 16mm f1.4 is a fat slob which only the most desperate-for-aperture-for-the-buck m43 user would buy over, say, a 15mm f1.7 or Oly 17mm f1.8. The 30mm f1.4 is another porcine lump which has to compete with far more svelte choices like the Pan Leica 25mm f1.4.

2. Sigma offered us m43 high-ISO-failing losers one lens (the Bigma 150-600mm), under Olympus/OMDS branding. In fact, they continue to do so. So Sigma hasn't really exited the m43 market. They're just "withdrawing" from offering us zombie-system-clinging m43 clowns lenses under their own brand since most of their APS-C-stolen lead-filled glass wasn't flying off the shelves even at deep, brand-destroying levels of discount.

I mean, who could have forseen that a motley pack of bird-shooters and GM1/5 and Pen-F hoarding m43 geezers clamoring for long zooms and tiny bodies would end up turning up their noses at the totally unstoppable f1.4 prime trio Sigma graced us with?

In conclusion, farewell Sigma. You may have abandoned our loser format (kinda but not really), but you never really gave us much to miss you for in the first place.

--
"Gentlemen, it has been a privilege playing with you tonight." - Titanic musician before their final song

The M43 problem - It too good to abandon

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

New member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts